As we address this issue of sentencing reform, mandatory minimums, prison over crowding and the misuse of power by District Attorneys through Direct File Statutes, I have found something of interest.  For the most part, lawmakers are unwilling to be the first one on their block to propose and stand behind criminal justice reforms.  They do not want to be the first to “test the waters” and see what kind of back lash would come as a result of these proposed changes. 

Fortunately there are the exceptions.  I applaud those lawmakers who see the error of our current legislation and want it changed.  The truth of the matter is, it is about justice.  The truth of the matter is, these are cruel and unusual punishments.  The truth of the matter is we are not being fair or just, when it comes to juvenile justice issues.  It is a question of morals, basic human rights, constitutionality and the future of our nation.  Morally?  Because we, as citizens of this country, are responsible for the children and insuring that they are protected, cared for and directed so that they become the next workers, business owners and leaders.  Human Rights?  Since when did we believe it was okay for any other country in the world to over look the needs of it’s children and to punish it’s children severly without having to answer to us for their actions?  We are not above those same requirements.  Constitutional?  Cruel and unusual punishment. 

There is hope.  There are states all across the nation who are working to change the juvenile justice system and, at the same time, looking at ways to prevent criminal behavior in juveniles.  Below are articles from two such states.

Ventura County

Editorial: Sentenced as minors to life

Young lives can be redeemed

Sunday, June 28, 2009

State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, is haunted by the case of a Riverside girl who was 16 when she killed the man who sexually abused her and lured her into prostitution. She was sentenced to life without parole and, today, at age 31, Sara Kruzan has been rehabilitated.

However, “She is locked up in jail, and she is going to die there,” Sen. Yee told The Associated Press last month.

Because of this case and hundreds of others, Sen. Yee has introduced legislation that would allow courts to review life-without-the-possibility-of-parole sentences given to minors. If the inmate met three of at least eight criteria, a court would grant a new sentencing hearing — but not necessarily change the sentence — to consider making a prisoner eligible for parole after he or she has served at least 25 years locked up.

The Star supports this bill, which takes into account that minors are different from adults, a fact recognized by the existence of a juvenile-justice system in the U.S., with sentencing guidelines and rules that differ significantly from those in the adult system.

Sen. Yee, who has a doctorate in child psychology, told the Oakland Tribune: “Adolescent impulse control, planning and critical thinking skills are still not yet fully developed. Children have an extraordinary capacity for rehabilitation.”

A report, “Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Sentencing 13- and 14-Year-Old Children to Die in Prison,” by The Equal Justice Initiative, a nonprofit law organization in Montgomery, Ala., states: “Kids too young to drive a car or go to a scary movie by themselves” are “subjected to the harshest possible prison sentence despite widespread acknowledgment by experts, parents, teachers, doctors and courts that children tend to be incapable of making mature choices, that they are vulnerable to negative influences and peer pressure, and that they are powerless to protect themselves from dysfunctional and dangerous home environments. The majority of these children were condemned to die in prison by mandatory sentencing laws that preclude the sentencer from considering the child’s age, maturity, or capacity for change.”

Human Rights Watch, an international watchdog group for human rights, supports Sen. Yee’s Senate Bill 399, noting there are 2,380 people in the U.S. serving life sentences for crimes they committed as minors, and just 12 in the rest of the world.

In California, there are 250 inmates given life-without-parole sentences for crimes they committed before they turned 18.

Such sentences violate international law and the Convention of the Rights of the Child, which has been ratified by every country in the world, except Somalia and the United States.

Colorado outlawed life-without-the-possibility-of-parole sentences for minors in 2006.

SB399 in California does not mandate a sentence be changed for the inmate sentenced as a minor to life without parole. It only grants a new sentencing hearing after the inmate has served at least 10 years behind bars and only if the inmate meets at least three of eight criteria. In addition, any new sentence would make the prisoner eligible for parole only after he or she has been imprisoned for at least 25 years.

SB399 passed out of the state Senate last week and is headed to an Assembly Public Safety Committee on Tuesday.

The Star urges the Assembly committee members to approve this bill.

[1] http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20090629/OPINION01/906290301/One-size-fits-all+justice+doesn+t+work+for+Mich.

June 29, 2009

One-size-fits-all justice doesn’t work for Mich.

Juveniles in Michigan can be given the state’s maximum prison sentence, which is life without the possibility of parole. Jeff Gerritt, an editorial writer for the Detroit Free Press, thinks that is a barbaric practice. See why in this opinion piece, which originally appeared in its entirety in the Free Press.

Michigan has outlawed second chances for some juveniles, garnering international shame for imposing the maximum adult penalty — life without parole — for children as young as 14.

The time is right to end this unreasonable and inhuman law that, in effect, declares young people beyond redemption. … As Michigan Department of Corrections Director Patricia Caruso has said, we must recognize the difference between those we fear and those we are simply mad at.

Arguments made by some Michigan prosecutors that they use the juvenile lifer law judiciously and with discretion — even if true — are off point. Many prosecutors, hunting for votes, have not exercised restraint or judgment. The only way to keep some of them from unnecessarily throwing away the keys on a juvenile offender is to change the law. …

There are serious moral and constitutional problems with sentencing juveniles to mandatory life sentences. That’s why Congress convened a hearing recently on legislation to eliminate life-without-parole sentences for juveniles, and the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up two Florida cases challenging such sentences.

Michigan, too, is re-examining juvenile lifer laws that impose one-size-fits-all justice. Bills in the state House and Senate would eliminate mandatory life sentences for juveniles and restore parole eligibility to those serving such sentences. …

The state House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Mark Meadows, D-East Lansing, has already tacked on some debilitating amendments to the bills, including lowering the applicable age to 16 and under and increasing the minimum time served from 10 years to 15 years. Excluding 17-year-olds, even though they are minors, would erase the possibility of parole for 129 of Michigan’s 346 juvenile lifers.

The committee might also, for the first time, require that prosecutors, judges and victims’ families approve a parole hearing. If that happens, we might as well stick with what we have. Would any Michigan prosecutor running for re-election ever OK a hearing for anyone convicted of a homicide?

On the Senate side, state Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, who heads the Judiciary Committee, would not commit even to given the juvenile lifer bills a hearing. … When corrections and criminal justice reform are dominating the public debate, no state legislator should prevent a hearing on an issue that the nation’s highest court and governing body are taking on.

These bills would not … unleash violent criminals. In fact, they would not, by themselves, release one juvenile lifer. They would only give them a chance at parole after serving 10 years or 15 years, and some have already served decades.

Michigan’s Parole Board is one of America’s toughest. Few juvenile offenders would get released after their first hearing. Still, offering some hope of freedom would provide a powerful incentive for prisoners to act right and change. Without hope, people become dangerous, or spiritually dead.

Science has proved what all parents already know: Juvenile brains are more impulsive and unstable than those of adults. They don’t have the same rights as adults, nor should they suffer the same penalties. …

People, especially young people, can change and contribute to society. But hundreds of juvenile offenders in Michigan prisons won’t get that chance unless legislators and Gov. Jennifer Granholm lift the state’s barbaric ban on second chances.